Afghan Election Quagmire
October 22, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
As detailed in the blogpost titled
‘U.S. Dilemma on Afghanistan’ published on the website
www.padminiarhant.com, September 1, 2009 – in the ‘International Politics’ category,
The flawed Afghan election results in favor of the current President Hamid Karzai appropriately rejected by the U.N. backed investigators with the runoff election scheduled for November 7, 2009.
Afghanistan heading for yet another election within two weeks is a tall order given the recent turmoil in the electoral process that led to the annulment of the results. Modern democracy is not devoid of voter fraud, corruption and unscrupulous tactics by the respective campaigns representing the political candidates.
However, the Afghan election is complex due to the extremism ranging from physical threats, ballots stuffing, violence that mars the democratic protocol and worsened now with the August election declared ‘flawed,’ by the United Nations panel and the other international authorities.
Again as suggested earlier in the cited blogposts –
Source: www.padminiarhant.com – International Politics
U.S. Dilemma on Afghanistan under the heading – ‘Political stalemate in the national election’ – September 1, 2009
Afghanistan War and Election – August 21, 2009
“In light of the above perspective, Afghanistan would be better off with a coalition government of the two contenders – President Hamid Karzai and DR. Abdullah Abdullah exchanging ideas, sharing the intellect and experience in a concerted effort to move the war torn nation forward to the twenty first century. In addition, the fractured society would benefit from the collective talent and experience of the consolidated government, besides maintaining checks and balances on the activities hindering the democratic functions.”
The prudent option for the incumbent President Hamid Karzai and the opponent DR. Abdullah Abdullah is to prioritize the national crisis demanding political stability, economic and social development, law and order…that would eventually steer the war ravaged Afghanistan towards a plausible democracy.
Considering the contentious political battle during the August election, both leaders share the burden of responsibility to alleviate the Afghan population suffering until now through a strong coalition. Moreover, the combined effort in addressing the great many challenges would expedite the birth of progressive and peaceful Afghanistan.
It’s absolutely important for both leaders with international stature to acknowledge the enormous anomalies in every aspect contributing to the status quo, not to mention the Afghanistan’s future dependent upon a solemn and a unified political structure dedicated to nation governance.
Needless to state that after a bitter political scuffle, it might be hard to swallow the pride and forge an alliance for a coalition government. Nevertheless, any leadership’s shining moment ascends when the common cause is recognized and the national interest upheld in sheer solidarity.
Afghanistan’s resources are scare at present and the runoff election is an additional economic and a political liability without a definite positive outcome. Further, the voter turnout is highly arbitrary and expected to be exacerbated by the approaching winter, Taliban interference and the prevalent U.S./NATO operations against the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces along the borders. In addition, it’s also a huge drain on the international resources that could be made available in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Although, power sharing is never an easy option, the two leaders and their able representatives should abandon the political sentiments while embracing the deep sense of patriotism to rebuild the nation yearning for a breath of fresh air in the form of harmony, hard work and honest government.
DR. Abdullah Abdullah, having held the cabinet position as the Foreign Minister under President Karzai’s administration, is not a stranger to this recommended union. Whatever issues there are or might be, it’s best to resolve through direct dialogue and forthright communication without compromising diplomacy.
Both leaders possess the relevant experience and knowledge to execute the power sharing vital for enforcing the desperate national security.
President Hamid Karzai has held the office since December 7, 2004.
Therefore, in a democratic setting it would be appropriate for –
DR. Abdullah Abdullah to assume the title as the 13th President of Afghanistan,
With the incumbent President Karzai overseeing the administrative affairs as a Senior Aide and a Political Liaison in the new administration.
Worldwide, there are many opportunities available to serve the nation and humanity. One can make a difference in any capacity provided there is an earnest desire to promote goodness, peace and unity.
Often, selfless leaders without an official post in politics such as Mahatma Gandhi, DR. Martin Luther King Jr., in recent memory have left an indelible mark in their incredible service to mankind.
The people of Afghanistan deserve a break from the perpetual unrest, chaos and catastrophe. It entirely rests in the hands of the two leaders President Hamid Karzai and DR. Abdullah Abdullah to reconcile their differences, identify the commonalities essential to relieve the exhausted population and let democracy prevail from now onwards.
On that note, Best Wishes to the leaderships of DR. Abdullah Abdullah as the new President of Afghanistan alongside the leader Hamid Karzai for a successful democratic government and a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Afghanistan War, the Additional Troops Request and the Election
September 28, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
There has been additional troops request from the U.S. and NATO Commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal accompanied by the endorsements of the other highest commands. The request made with a sense of urgency within the military ranks based on variable assessments and conflicting reports from different sources that if the troops request delayed or denied; “it could perhaps lead to the mission failure” in the prolonged war that had continued to deploy troops on that strategy.
According to reputable news sources, the U.S. force in Afghanistan estimated to reach 68,000 by the year’s end. Now, the fact remains to be carefully examined on the U.S. and NATO defense policy implemented in the Afghanistan war prompting the current administration to inflate the defense budget disproportionately to $651.2 billion excluding the various non-itemized expenditures by the other departments in the nucleus.
The following materials are extremely important in ascertaining the real purpose of the persistent war nearing almost a decade with incessant violence, lawlessness and horrendous loss of lives on all sides that could have been contained considering the interjection of enormous resources in terms of funding and troops supply possibly restoring a democratic rule in Afghanistan conforming with the metaphor –
“Where there is a will, there is a way.”
The sequel with a detailed analysis will follow in due course of time.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
————————————————————————————————–
Advisers split over Afghan troop request:
Military divided over force levels required for plan
By Peter Baker and Elisabeth Bumiller – New York Times
Provided through The San Jose Mercury News, Sunday September 27, 2009 – Thank you.
“Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s troop request, which was submitted to the Pentagon on Friday, has reignited a longstanding debate within the military about the virtues of the counterinsurgency strategy popularized by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq and embraced by McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops for the eight-year old war, a number that has generated concern among top officers like Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who worry about the capacity to provide more soldiers at a time of stress on the force, officials said.
While Obama is hearing from more hawkish voices, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, some outside advisers relied on by Obama have voiced doubts.
But other officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and say they admire McChrystal nonetheless have privately expressed doubt that additional troops will make a difference.
“If a request for more forces comes to the Army, we’ll have to assess what that will do in terms of stress on the force,” said a senior Army officer, who asked not to be identified speaking before McChrystal’s troop request became public.”
Casey, whose institutional role as Army chief is to protect his force, has a stated goal by 2012 to increase a soldier’s time at home from the current one year for every year of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to two years at home for every year served.”
——————————————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States – Thank you.
U.S. Defense Budget for the Fiscal Year 2009:
For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion. Not included in the DoD budget is $23.4 billion to be spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.
NON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE RELATED EXPENDITURES
This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production (about $16.4 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $53.0 billion), defense spending by the Department of Homeland Security (about $41.4 billion),
Interest on debt incurred in past wars, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (about $83.4 billion in 2009, funded through extra-budgetary supplemental bills), or State Department financing of foreign arms sales (about $5.3 billion) and militarily-related development assistance.
The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2008 for about 21% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures. Including spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran’s Affairs, defense spending was approximately $800 billion, or 32% of 2008 tax receipts of $2.5 trillion.[5]
Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays. Military funding’s share of discretionary funding was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.
The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world’s military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). In 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and agricultural production in the USA.
————————————————————————————————–
Focus on the Afghanistan war and the Operational Deficiency:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
TOTAL CASUALTIES FOR THE YEAR:
By January 2009, the Taliban claimed that they had killed 5,220 foreign troops, downed 31 aircraft, destroyed 2,818 NATO and Afghan vehicles and killed 7,552 Afghan soldiers and police in 2008 alone. The Associated Press estimated that a total of 286 foreign military personnel were killed in Afghanistan in 2008.[130] Icasualties puts the total number of coalition soldiers killed in 2008 at 294.
——————————————————————————————
2009: U.S. Surge :
Main article: Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2009
JOINT INTELLIGENCE CENTER –
The Khyber Border Coordination Center between the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan, at Torkham on the Afghan side of the Khyber Pass, has been in operation for nine months. But U.S. officials at the Khyber Center say language barriers, border disputes between Pakistani and Afghan field officers, and longstanding mistrust among all three militaries have impeded progress.
In January, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush and increased by Barack Obama.
In mid-February, it was announced that 17,000 additional troops would be deployed to the country in two brigades and additional support troops; the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade of about 3,500 from the 7,000 Marines, and the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, a Stryker Brigade with about 4,000 of the 7,000 US Army soldiers. The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General McKiernan, had called for as many as 30,000 additional troops, effectively doubling the number of troops currently in the country.
—————————————————————————————–
TALIBAN’S GAINS
On August 10, 2009, Stanley McChrystal, the newly appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said that the Taliban has presently gained the upper hand and that the ISAF is not winning in the 8 year-old war.
————————————————————————————————
Possible long-term U.S. role & military presence:
Many of the thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan are positioned in what experts say are large, permanent bases.
In February 2005, U.S. Senator John McCain called for the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, saying such bases would be “for the good of the American people, because of the long-term security interests we have in the region”.
He made the remarks while visiting Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul as part of a five-member, bi-partisan Senate delegation travelling through the region for talks on security issues.
The same delegation also included then-Senator Hillary Clinton, now U.S. Secretary of State.
In mid-March, 2005, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers told reporters in Kabul that the U.S. Defense Department was studying the feasibility of such permanent military bases. At the end of March, the U.S. military announced that it was spending $83-million on its two main air bases in Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base north of Kabul and Kandahar Air Field in the south of the country.
A few weeks after this series of U.S. statements, in April 2005, during a surprise visit to Kabul by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Afghan President Hamid Karzai hinted at a possible permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, saying he had also discussed the matter with President Bush. Rumsfeld refused to say whether or not the U.S. wanted permanent American military bases in Afghanistan, saying the final decision would come from the White House.
As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field base, described as “a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries – the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army.” The Bagram Air Base, run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.
As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar.
In February 2009, The Times reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan. One will be built in Kandahar province near the Helmand border, at Maiwand – a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army during the Second Anglo-Afghan War. The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul, a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.
————————————————————————————————–
AFGHAN RESISTANCE TO PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES
The idea of permanent U.S. military bases vexes many people in Afghanistan, which has a long history of resisting foreign invaders.
In May 2005, riots and protests that had started over a false report in Newsweek of U.S. interrogators desecrating the Koran and turned into the biggest anti-U.S. protests in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion included demands that the Kabul government reject U.S. intentions to create a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.
——————————————————————————————–
Public opinion
Main article: International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan
Although the war was supported by most Americans, most people in the world oppose the war.
In a 47-nation June 2007 survey of global public opinion, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to war.
In 41 of the 47 countries, pluralities want U.S. and NATO troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. In 32 out of 47 countries, clear majorities want this war over as soon as possible.
Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries say troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.
————————————————————————————————–
Afghan Election:
After Karzai’s alleged win of 54 per cent, which would prevent a run off with his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, over 400,000 votes had to be discounted for Karzai, and many more with hundreds of thousands of votes and polling ballots being accused of fraud.
Making the real turnout of the elections much lower than the official numbers, many nations criticizing the elections as Free but not fair.
Coalition in Afghanistan backs Karzai’s Strategy:
By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post , provided by San Jose Mercury News, Monday September 28, 2009.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other NATO foreign ministers, meeting Friday in New York with their Afghan counterpart, reached “consensus” that Karzai would probably “continue to be president,” whether through a runoff or as the legitimate winner of more than 50 percent of votes cast in disputed Aug.20 elections, an Obama administration official said.”
————————————————————————————————–
U.S. Dilemma on Afghanistan
September 1, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Subsequent to the comprehensive layout on Afghanistan’s Status quo on this site, titled ‘Afghanistan War and Election,’ August 21, 2009 under Politics – International section, the situation reported to be deteriorating in two different aspects, the war and the controversial election results.
With respect to the eight-year-old war – the insurgency is the calculated guerilla warfare, the page taken from Vietnam era and the terrorist tactic to stymie the Western forces equipped with modern weaponry.
The recruits comprising the natives and foreigners vulnerable to terrorists’ fundamentalism carefully chosen to endure the extreme conditions…serve as a huge advantage for the insurgency against the U.S. and NATO alliance.
Furthermore, the volatile political environment from the recent Afghan elections fraught with widespread corruption and voter fraud creating uncertainties and exacerbating the Western backed government’s credibility, again likely favorable to the Taliban militants.
Amidst chaos and carnage, the civilian populations are the victims and potential targets for the militants’ disingenuous appeasement, exploiting the turmoil to their political and militaristic gains.
Solutions: The ideal strategy for the U.S. and NATO to turn the situation around in the long embroiled battle is to focus exclusively on combat operation with the existing troop level.
It is important to remember that the war in Afghanistan is no longer a unilateral commitment by the United States. Despite the NATO involvement in the on-going military conflict and suffering immense casualties along with the United States, the international community must realize that the rise of Taliban and Al Qaeda’s refuge in that region will continue to remain the biggest threat to global security.
In light of the dynamic shift in the ceaseless war, the rest of the world has equal responsibility in restoring the embattled nation towards ‘normalcy’ with a generous financial contribution and logistic support. It’s rather unreasonable to burden the United States with the constant supply of resources in the form of troops and financial investments.
Any additional troops requirement should be supplemented with the globally represented U.N. Peacekeeping force brought to the region to protect civilian lives and interests. The deployment should also be the oversight for construction and repair of infrastructure, schools, hospitals, community centers with global aid directly invested in the civilian welfare.
In this context, it’s best to recognize that the U.N. peace keeping force would be more effective with army personnel sharing and not contrasting the socioeconomic backgrounds to overcome language and cultural barriers when dealing with the local populace in the villages and remote corners of the nation.
Under no circumstances, it should be outsourced to private enterprise such as the notorious Blackwater, now operating as Xe “pronounced like the letter ‘z,’” marred with civilian killings in Iraq and disturbing accounts in Afghanistan. In fact, such recruits have been a major threat to the locals and proven a liability to the United States in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.
Political stalemate in the national election: Although, the incumbent President Hamid Karzai is reportedly leading in the highly contested national election, the reality confirms otherwise. According to the international political watchdog groups and other reliable sources, the election results do not reflect the democratic process due to excessive power abuse by the government seeking re-election against the political challengers.
The people of Afghanistan like their fellow global citizens, deserve free and fair elections. Although, such notion widely scorned for personal motive by the demographically complex social hierarchy, the demand is justified to begin the end of the corrupt bureaucracy and the political structure.
Hence, the false victory by the ruling political faction and the head of the government not legitimized as the democratically elected leadership. Since, Afghanistan needs to invest the scarce resources in the reconstruction and economic development, the runoff election is not a prudent choice.
Therefore, the unity between the two major political candidates President Hamid Karzai and DR. Abdullah Abdullah for a coalition government is paramount to move the war torn nation forward into the twenty first century goals. Ignoring the society’s plight for political aspirations would be detrimental to any kind of progress, personal and public.
When leadership stands the test of time against all odds, it enhances the nation’s fortitude. Leaving the thought behind, the expectation from the Afghan political leaders is to prioritize the national peace, prosperity and future above all.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Afghanistan War and Election
August 21, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
The nation ravaged with decades of wars, terrorism, militant rule and occupation goes to the polls to exercise the basic human right, a privilege in this part of the world , while taken for granted in the U.S.of A as reflected in the health care battle.
Afghanistan known for the ruggedness and terrains with the Khyber Pass enabling invaders to move across the foreign territories in a manner as the ‘no-man’s land’ ignoring the inhabitants scattered around the vast mountainous regions.
Afghan demography is complex and beyond the grasp of understanding for Western powers and even its Central Asian neighbors. The Imperial powers from the British, Russian and now the American & NATO forces have struggled to enforce any form of stability, political or otherwise.
The tribal laws conforming to the medieval times view the progress desired by the mainstream population from the rural to the urban areas, a threat to the ancient culture and the tribal archaic ascribed to the Western influence through occupations.
Further, the abandonment of the Afghan nation by the Western forces after brutal Soviet decimation solidified the anti-trust against the Western power. Unfortunately, the desolate population then sought the support of the groups earlier recognized as the mujahedeen (combatants against struggle) trained by the CIA and fostered by the Reagan administration core foreign policy titled Reagan doctrine to challenge the Soviet rule.
Ironically, the trade tricks related to weaponry and military retaliation imparted by the sophisticated U.S. armed forces in the late 1970’s to combat Soviet presence tactfully demonstrated in the on-going war on terror between the Taliban insurgents and the U.S & NATO alliance.
Mujahedeen were nurtured through the neighbor Pakistani ISI and military aid essentially representing various multinational forces like the United States CIA, Saudi Arabia, People’s Republic of China, several Western European countries and the military regimes in Pakistan.
When the U.S. departure followed the end of Soviet occupation, the country engaged in a civil war in the late 1980’s forcing the orphans of the Mujahedeen evolve into today’s menace the Talibans. The outcome – the tiny lizard morphed into a tyrannosaurus…wreaking havoc in the Islamic Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan apart from becoming the terrorists’ haven for the terror organization Al-Qaeda and the world’s most wanted Osama Bin Laden.
Now when democracy appears to work its way through, the country riddled with bureaucracy, corruption and the ever-lucrative production of poppy fields.
What could the people of Afghanistan possibly live for and aspire in the twenty first century?
After prolonged tyranny and drudgery, the people are tired and worn out from the perpetual cycle of violence that has paralyzed progress leaving the nation behind in stone age, when the rest of the world zoomed past them reminding that Afghanistan frozen in time.
The Afghani people as part of the human race seek simple life. A life guaranteed with freedom, human rights allowing every human being to live with respect, honor and dignity. Above all, the people of Afghanistan deserve peace like their fellow citizens in Palestine, Africa and other war torn regions of the world. Women as victims of extreme hostility and abuse imploring for their release from the ideological shackles and inhumane practices shockingly happening in both the developed as well as the ‘backwaters’ of the nation.
Children, the future of any country and the world dream of normal existence such as attending schools for both girls and boys, raised by their parents and the family unit if they are lucky to survive the Western aerial bombardments via drones and the Taliban insurgency. These innocent souls, even in that environment of despair and hopelessness don’t forget to smile or pose…momentarily floating in their fantasy to be the center of the universe for the international press and media.
When they grow up, the men have the options to either become a terror network recruit or hired by the tribal warlords to toil in the poppy fields contributing to the flourishing narcotic industry. The alternative for young women is to become the obedient slave in the male chauvinistic society regardless of the Western backed and financed political leaderships in Kabul.
It’s relevant to analyze the objective and achievements by the U.S. led war against terror mission in this region. After consuming millions of Afghani lives as well as American/NATO casualties and billions of American taxpayer dollars the status quo is –
There is no information on Osama Bin Laden, Talibanization of Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan leading to Pakistani military action in Waziristan and the Swat Valley, fragmented Al-Qaeda temporarily relocating to Somalia while controlling operation in Pakistan.
In terms of the U.S. national security, the war in Afghanistan claimed to be justified.
How long is the war in Afghanistan long enough for the U.S. and allied forces?
Has continued U.S. aggression eliminated terror forces from the region?
One might argue that there have been no attacks against U.S. interests since 9/11 as a result of the continuous drone and ground attacks in Afghanistan. It could serve as a legitimate argument,
However, the fact of the matter is the terrorists believe that they gain nothing from repeating September 11 attacks. The motive behind September 11 was to inflict economic chaos and constrict the once booming U.S. economy, which the terror network accomplished with the catastrophic terrorist activity. The economic turmoil further exacerbated with the previous administrations’ Machiavellian Iraq adventure exceeding Al-Qaeda’s expectations to reign in on the U.S. economic progress.
Instead, Al-Qaeda diverted its attention to Iraq’s battleground with their insurgencies to prolong the Iraqi conflict in their aim to continue draining the U.S. treasury.
Meanwhile, the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan issuing death warrants to the electorate and forbidding them from going to the voting booths confirm the insurgents’ defiance against the U.S. and NATO forces. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s primary goal is to re-establish their Sharia law governance and headquarters in Afghanistan. They will fight fiercely until the Western power exhausted of the never-ending guerilla warfare that the West proven weaker at… for e.g. Vietnam, Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The Drones might be successful in reducing the U.S and NATO casualties and seemingly achieving their targets, but the major problem of the entire warfare strategy lies in the massive civilian loss of lives from this operation. Although, the Taliban insurgents counteracting the Western drone attacks by blending in with the civilians in the remote and rural regions, the Afghani government and the people view the incidents as Western negligence given the past track record and remarks by the ex-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the civilian deaths in Kabul in 2001 – “collateral damages in war.”
No populace would like the eternal presence of foreign troops on their soil, whether it’s Afghanistan or Iraq, irrespective of the occupiers’ mission. The hypocrisy is conspicuous when the U.S. conservative agenda vehemently opposes the ‘illegal’ immigrants represented by the unarmed civilians and in the same breath relentlessly supports the ‘illegal military invasion and occupation’ of foreign lands whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan.
How does the U.S and NATO make progress in the rocky Afghanistan?
First, eliminating the arsenal and arms supply to the insurgents would considerably debilitate the militants’ strength. Detecting the providers and enforcing severe international arms control would substantially relieve the U.S. and NATO command from any additional troops requirement. Similar techniques in Iraq would reduce the internal violence over there.
The immediate implementation of such methods would not only protect immense lives from all sides but also greatly help the U.S. economy from the war spending and investing in the life saving “National health care with public option.”
Second, allocating a major segment of the military operation towards nation building like infrastructure, schools and hospitals rather than held responsible for national chaos and killings. This would easily win the hearts and minds of the local population.
Last but not the least, paving way for job creations in both agricultural and industrial sector would gradually lead to the emancipation of the society. Afghanistan believed to be thriving in poppy plants yielding Opium. Likewise, Afghanistan has other valuable cash crops with vast potential to become a leading exporter of dry fruits and nuts, other than woolen products – clothing, shawls, carpets, rugs and silver, mineral ore etc.
Therefore, substituting Opium with healthy life sustenance crops like wheat, nuts, dry fruits and setting up woolen mills and carpet manufacturing guaranteed to revive hope and change that is long overdue in this nation.
The United States, European countries as well as developing nations like India and others should collectively promote the Afghanistan economy by easing the trade tariffs and quotas for these products and facilitate the trade flow from this long battered nation.
With respect to the political system – Unless and until the substantial corruption, bureaucracy and nepotism restrained if not eradicated from the political structure, no western power can succeed in the democratization of this demographically estranged society.
The incumbent administration under President Hamid Karzai, survivor of several assassination plots and attempts by the alleged Pakistani ISI supported Talibans up until early this year, has disappointed the international community on a range of issues.
President Karzai’s inability and lack of interest in housekeeping specifically the Opium production, minimizing government bureaucracy leading to corruptions, alleviating the nation’s poverty and devising any effective plan for job creations and economic growth has undermined regional advancement given the tribal control of the remaining areas.
Moreover, the Karzai government’s endorsement of social injustice towards women slighting women’s rights in the marital relationship is a matter of deep concern and violates the democratic norm in a society represented by the Western sponsored leadership.
According to various news reports, the voter turnout was relatively low as a result of the Taliban’s stern warnings to harm the electorate.
In light of the above perspective, Afghanistan would be better off with a coalition government of the three contenders – President Hamid Karzai, DR. Abdullah Abdullah and DR. Ashraf Ghani exchanging ideas, sharing intellect and experience in a concerted effort to move the war torn nation forward to the twenty first century. In addition, the fractured society would benefit from the collective talent and experience of the consolidated government, besides maintaining checks and balances on activities hindering the democratic functions.
On that note, Best Wishes offered to the new government in Afghanistan with peace, progress and prosperity in the immediate future.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Why Health Care Reform must not fail?
July 21, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
People vs. Special Interests, GOP and Conservative Democrats aka Blue Dogs
The opponents to health care reform – the conglomerate with legislators as spokespersons and the conservative media specifically a network dedicated to the hampering of national progress in every respect deserve scrutiny and appropriate response.
It’s no surprise to witness the ‘grandstanding’ against the President by the opposition retaliating to the brutal defeat in the ’06, ’08 and inevitably the 2010 elections.
Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint made it pretty clear why the opponents of health care reform are fighting so hard.
As he told a special interest attack group,
“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
Here’s how the President responded:
“Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy. And we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.”
What does the devious modus operandi mean to the national interest?
In a democracy, the constituents might have elected the health care opponents in the Democratic Party and GOP (The Grand Old Party) more appropriately ‘The Grand Obstructionist Party,’ however, their allegiance clearly sworn to special interests famished for atrocious profits at the expense of national interest.
The health care industry surpasses every other sector in this context.
Such betrayal in the light of naked truth in their face prompts the nation to question the patriotism of these legislators vehemently opposed to the welfare of their electorate representing the democracy.
It’s time for America to reign in on the ideology driven idiosyncrasies of the party that appears to be determined to lead the great state like California and the resilient USA to peril. As though it’s not enough that the once thriving state and national economies now on the brink of bankruptcy due to the failed ‘so-called’ fiscal policies by the fiscal conservatives operating exclusively to benefit their own and the benefactors’ agenda.
Where were the crusaders during the Republican controlled executive, legislative and judicial branches inheriting a surplus economy in 2000 went wild on a safari to a territory called ‘Iraq’ that predominantly led to the national status quo?
Perhaps, if the ‘apparently’ concerned lawmakers and persistent critics of the President Obama then displayed similar passion and emotions through kindergarten ‘Show and Tell’ dioramas to rescue the nation from an economic disaster titled ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ by posing the relevant questions currently aimed at the health care reform such as:
1. How much is it going to cost the American taxpayers?
2. Is it self-funded or a dead weight on the taxpayers’ backs, which interestingly rested on the donkey’s back?
3. Is there an exit strategy or earmarked for a golden jubilee?
4. Any consideration for the possible if not imminent loss of lives from the Machiavellian adventure.
5. Lastly, Why should the government indulge in the oil exploration, (the real motive behind U.S. invasion of Iraq) when the private enterprise equipped to flourish through market manipulation of choice, quality and price?
Their ‘die hard’ fiscal sentiments on health care reform would be meaningful and justified.
The irony with the major hooplas on health care reform targeting costs reduction and saving lives rejected by the same ‘pro-life,’ fiscal conservatives otherwise the lobbyists funded loyalists, while each and every one of them are the proud signatories to a reckless mission viz. Iraq that bankrupted the economy besides mass production of corpses.
According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation data – Combined Iraq and Afghanistan war costs since Fiscal Year 2001 to date – $872.6 billion, of which Iraq’s share alone to national deficit is $661.1 billion and rising, costing more than three-fifths of the proposed trillion-dollar health care overwhelmingly approved and authorized by the fiscal stalwarts.
Meanwhile the U.S. taxpayers and the businesses health care costs in the exclusively private sector run with the insurance industry dominance compared to the industrialized nations’ health care is attention worthy.
Please refer to the sequel on the health care topic literally matter to life and death.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
U.S. Relations with India
July 19, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Indian sub-continent is a topic to discuss in different context. It’s obvious that the United States engagement in Afghanistan tied with the success of the Zardari-Gilani government presumably involved in eliminating the mayhem in the northwestern region by the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces after substantial autonomy from the less credible previous military rule of the President Pervez Musharraf.
Despite the severe domestic economic crisis, the continuation of U.S. financial and military aid to Pakistan is an enormous investment of U.S. trust and resources in the nuclear Pakistan. In return, Pakistan must deliver the long anticipated results terminating not only the major terror organizations like Al-Qaeda and Taliban but also all terror networks in its entirety constituting a menace to its own and international peace and security.
Much to the anxiety of the nuclear neighbor India and the remaining Western nations, United States role in expecting the Pakistani government to co-operate and contribute effectively in the global war against terror is crucial unlike the blind trust and blank checks policy of the Bush administration.
As stated earlier, the United States focus and priority should shift from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the people of these socially and economically disadvantaged nations.
Although, the long overdue transformation depends on the interface with the respective governments, the United States must not squander the leverage it holds against the bureaucratic powers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan denounced for widespread corruption.
Further, given the disproportionate U.S. economic aid and troops commitment in the global cause, it’s incumbent on the international allies and every other nation affected by global terrorism to share the financial and military burden in alleviating the universal security crisis.
With respect to the emerging economic power and nuclear India’s concern over its nuclear neighbor Pakistan’s refusal and non-compliance of the international extradition treaty involving terrorists and terror networks in the Mumbai attacks last year —
The non-committal and disheartening response by the head of the State Department during the Indian press conference in Mumbai do not bode well with the world’s largest democracy in tune with the U.S. relations and pledges towards its allies particularly the closest ally Israel evidenced in the recent rhetoric such as —
“Strike against Israel will be an attack on the United States with a serious retaliation…”
To reiterate, the key representatives of the present White House and some legislators conspicuously favored to double standards are doing more harm than helping the United States in regaining the lost international solidarity and support much required in all fronts ranging from the economy, the environment, to the international security.
Unfortunately, the changing political landscape and economic developments in Asia and elsewhere ignored by the old school of thoughts indicates their ill preparedness of the reality.
The United States interest to take economic advantage of the expanding Indian middle class segment that is impressively political savvy and the U.S. demand seeking Indian input in the environmental issue possibly characterized as an ‘opportunism,’ considering the United States defense of the Zardari government’s inaction towards India’s security matter.
It would add to significant blunders in the U.S. foreign policy if the United States continues to adhere to the conventional strategy of hard line approach towards hypothetical threats yet selectively oblivious to genuine frustration based on real and proven events between the two nuclear nations in the Indian sub-continent.
Needless to state that the dysfunctional U.S. foreign policy due for drastic reform in the world view and understanding of the plight of the nations dependent on the United States to be a trustworthy partner in the mediation process of international peace and security. Otherwise, the status quo reviving the cold war era facilitating the nuclear and conventional arsenal proliferation is imminent.
Leadership thrives with fairness and equal treatment of all.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
‘Talibanization’ of Afghanistan and Pakistan
May 13, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and the northwestern regions of Pakistan, particularly the swat valley have proven deadlier for the ruling powers in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United Sates due to the inevitable civilian casualties and displacement arising from the incessant shelling supposedly targeting the Taliban militants.
According to the Pakistani government, the military operation has been effective thus far in the attack against the militants, without any confirmation or denial on the humanitarian catastrophe.
Meanwhile, the Taliban’s pervasive retaliation to the military force is evident from the clashes in other districts, Buner and Dir with the Taliban expected to be within 60 miles of the Capital city, Islamabad. Incidentally, the Taliban’s eyes are set on Karachi, the commercial capital and an epicenter for various terror networks readily available to forge alliance with the ideological militant group.
The North -Western Frontier Province appears to be under siege. The heavy bombing has elevated the humanitarian crisis with the internal refugees toll reaching a phenomenal 1.3 million and still rising including the earlier 550,000 from the tribal warfare.
It’s intriguing for those familiar with the Taliban’s rise and fall and their sudden emergence with well-equipped weaponry to challenge the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and the Pakistani artillery predominantly supplied by the United States and China. Most recently, the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari reportedly blamed the United States i.e. CIA for creating the Taliban and implied that such creation consequently led to the present quagmire.
Origin of Taliban as ‘Mujahideens’ (The Arabic meaning “strugglers” )
As per Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia – Thanks
“The best-known mujahideen, various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups, initially fought against the incumbent pro-Soviet Afghan government during the late 1970s.
The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[5] and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People’s Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime in Pakistan.
The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.”
Reality Check:
Although, the facts support the origin of Taliban (historically the orphans of the former Soviet oppression) as the ‘Mujahideens’ previously funded and trained by the nations vigorously involved in the lucrative arms race up until now,
The contemporary rise of Taliban and their empowerment attributed to the covert support by the Pakistani military and prominently the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) implicated in various terrorist activities around the world notably the September 11, 2001 and notwithstanding the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008.
The dynamic duo also presumably associated with other national and international conspiracies…
Fostering acrimony between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute,
Coordinating with China and Israel in the arms supply to the island nation Sri Lanka in the ethnic cleansing of the Tamils,
Assassination attempts on the Afghan President Hamid Karzai,
The Indian embassy bombing in Kabul, and
Last but not the least, the possible link in the assassination of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto are few of the many contentious issues related to both institutions.
The above information might be controversial and inflammatory however, in Pakistan’s political reality democracy never allowed to blossom by the all-powerful Pakistani military force and the Intelligence Services apparently controlling the nuclear site. The successful coups in the past right down to the former Military Commander and President Pervez Musharraf are testimony to the fact that democracy proven oxy-moron by the ISI and the Pakistan armed forces.
Ironically, the waging of war against Taliban by the Zardari-Gilani administration succeeding a Military regime with a puppet figurehead after having given refuge and diplomatic immunity to the ousted Taliban forces post 9/11 is analogous to a raging forest fire set by the rangers entrusted with safeguarding the habitat’s interest.
It’s noteworthy that the former President Musharraf’s government was the only nation and the Islamic power to extend an open invitation to the Talibans following the U.S. troops led war against Afghanistan in 2001, while simultaneously posing as an important ally to the former U.S. administration under President George W. Bush.
Talibans are the by-product of the historic multinational blunder and botched up conventional stockpiles sale by the military industrial complex in Afghanistan under the guise of prototype for democracy in the lawless region of the world.
How does the scenario play out in Pakistan’s neck of the woods and for the rest of the world?
Taliban and Al-Qaida are formidable in their ideology to destabilize the democratic (more appropriately ‘dynasty’) rule in Pakistan perceived as the “American appointees” with the political cohesion of the Pakistani ISI and the Military hierarchy.
The Congress under Bush administration approved and granted $10 billion U.S. taxpayers aid to the Military power represented by the ex-President Musharraf for FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) in an effort to fight the global war on terror. In return, the Pakistani Military misappropriated the funds(?) and diverted all attention towards the long time rival India in anticipation of a major confrontation on Kashmir by instigating the local militant groups alongside the Kashmiri border.
Evidently, failure on FATA combined with the conciliatory actions by the Pakistani ISI and the Military contributed to a myriad of terror networks within Pakistani soil. Furthermore, the lack of oversight and accountability on the U.S. taxpayers’ aid to the Pakistan Military rather than the people enabled the precipitous decline of law and order.
As a result of the unconditional foreign aid to the institutions with flawed track record, today Waziristan is a safe haven for the Al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden and the North-Western Frontier Province now under Taliban control, thereby comprising a strategic victory for the terror and militant groups.
Interestingly, the Pakistan military has incorporated the incumbent U.S. President Obama’s “Change” philosophy in their traditional political agenda, i.e. toppling the government elected through a muddled electoral process in Pakistan. The difference being the conspicuous departure from the overt military coup launched against the prior democratic governments in the state.
Nothing more potent in fomenting anti-government and anti-American sentiments than a political turmoil from the homegrown insurgency forcing the ruling government to stage air and ground assaults yielding immense civilian casualties and ultimately the refugee status for a sizeable population in the homeland, again the humanitarian disaster unfolding with the blessings of the United States behind the scenes.
The anger and disappointment is visibly widespread among the victims and the families, they are demanding that the international community hold the United States and Zardari government accountable for the greatest human tragedy.
In this particular instance, the Pakistani ISI and the Military score the highest points for being the smooth operators.
Not surprisingly, the moderate, peaceful and pro-democracy population in Karachi and different parts of Pakistan is terrified of the Taliban rule and the Sharia law. The domestic and the international news agencies along with the human rights organizations have released several reports with graphic visuals on the civilian deaths and the exodus of at least 1,000,000 refugees and probably more are fleeing the main town, Mingora in Swat Valley and other war zones.
Accordingly, the Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani seeking international aid to relieve the millions and the President Zardari’s visit to the U.S. requesting Congress for at least $83 billion U.S aid to rescue his nation from tyranny might be justified.
Howsoever, the United States taxpayers and other nations should not fall into the booby trap of funneling funds to the state, since the ordinary citizens in Pakistan and Afghanistan never ever receive a dime and invariably the funds are channeled to the nefarious sources lacking in ethics and defiant of national or international law. Please refer to the alternative recommendations detailed in the ‘remedy’ section of the article.
With respect to Afghanistan, the United States Special Forces’ recent aggression against the Talibans and other terror networks producing the huge civilian casualties is unacceptable. The medical reports from the international aid organizations suggest the use of White Phosphorous bombs in the raid, claiming to be legal in the international wars despite the use of such chemical arsenal considered a humanitarian crime on all accounts.
These are the reasons why war is a terrible choice as there is no winner except for the deaths and destruction of innocent civilians apart from the truth being the other casualty. An independent, international committee should conduct any investigation and not the parties accused of the crime to reflect seriousness and credibility in the matter.
International Crisis Remedy
Civil unrest and internal violence anywhere is a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the situation in Pakistan is precarious not just for the ‘nuclear’ factor and the potential ramifications in the Indian sub-continent, but also the imminent danger of radical elements in control of a highly volatile nation complex in demographic, political and socio-economic structure. In addition, Taliban and Al-Qaida together constitute a tremendous threat to the international security.
Effective immediately, any financial assistance from the United States and other nations must be conditional with a requirement for complete overhauling of the Pakistani ISI and the top Military officials to assure the international community the legitimacy of democratic power in the state.
Under no circumstances, cash payments made directly to the government agents in both countries i.e. Afghanistan and Pakistan in the light of embezzlement and bribery scandals involving the political figures. The economic aid to the people delivered by the credible non-profit humanitarian organizations is appropriate to realize the real gains and progress in the nations affected by corrupt bureaucracy.
Investments in cash and kind must be subject to accountability by an oversight committee of the respective nations.
Given the magnitude of the humanitarian plight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the United States and NATO should engage more in the relief effort by providing logistic support to the people of these two nations desperately in need of efficient services from evacuation to settlement in peaceful manner.
Henceforth, the United States and allies must shift gear from the offensive military operation towards the relentless Peace Corps projects and rebuild civilizations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and war zones around the world. Such unprecedented action called for image reparation and trust revival lost in the imperialistic desire to invade and occupy nations vulnerable to new age weapons experiment.
The escalating violence and tension in these two countries has generated a severe loss of confidence in the local and foreign governments by the victims caught in the crossfire between the tribal warlords in cahoots with the fundamentalist forces and, the military might of the economic powers in the world.
Therefore, it’s essential for Afghanistan, Pakistan, United States and NATO to prioritize civilian protection and welfare before, during and after the combat period. It would greatly improve relationship with the local civilian population important to prevail in the indomitable task of defeating terror around the world.
In the twentieth and twenty first century, the rich and affluent nations imposing economic sanctions against the economically weak offenders has been the common and popular course of action, regardless of the real victims being the people and not the government authorities in power.
Now is the time to abandon the military action, economic sanctions and concepts that are obsolete, redundant and counterproductive. Instead, useful and meaningful methods guided by moral principles are the best replacement to deal with any and all crises.
International consensus and action is paramount in the permanent arms embargo to relieve poor/ impoverished nations and developing/developed nations alike from the persisting outbreak of civil wars constantly witnessed in Africa, Latin, Central and South America, and relevantly in Sri Lanka with Pakistan and Afghanistan leading the world trend.
The existing conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not a regional issue but a global calamity. Similarly, it’s no longer the United States’ unilateral battle and the cooperation from the world over at all levels viz. troops involvement, financial assistance and logistic provision instrumental in maintaining international peace and order.
Finally, the game is over for the military industrial complex raking profits at the expense of innocent blood in the worldwide promotion of senseless carnage and chaos among humanity.
For the world at large, it’s worth remembering that,
“Peace within you helps spreading peace around you.”
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
National Security Act – Torture
May 6, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Torture
The nation riddled with recent events pertaining to national security. In the past few weeks, there have been vigorous debates and discussions on the release of the torture memos describing the torture tactics applied on the speculative terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay and those held in Bagram Prison, Afghanistan.
There are polarizing views regarding the release of these materials claiming the potential threat to national security including the CIA and FBI operatives’ difficulty in performing their duties to keep the country safe. Those in favor of transparency welcome the Obama administration’s gesture subject to further course of action. Merely releasing the materials will not suffice considering the misuse of power and gross violation of humanitarian laws.
In addition, the subsequent argument on the possible prosecution of the individuals responsible for torture against the Geneva Convention contributing yet another dilemma in the definition of torture and accountability factor. Obviously, the predecessors’ supporters vehemently oppose the entire action thus far – from revealing the information to investigation.
The Obama administration‘s ambiguity on the humanitarian issue perceived as the White House conspicuously avoiding ‘retribution’ smear and possible distraction from the legislative matters like the universal health care. Meanwhile, concerned citizens intrigued by the extreme strategy implemented to justify the imminent danger hypothesis, a constant practice by the previous administration notably the successful fear-mongering tactic during and after the Iraq invasion and occupation.
A full disclosure of the interrogation techniques particularly the notorious water boarding , ill-treatment and the indefinite imprisonment of the ‘so-called suspects’ in these captive centers confirm the serious violation of International Code namely the rejection of GCIII and Habeas Corpus.
It is important to examine the exact interpretation of the International laws set up for guidance and ethical purpose. Further, the enforcement of these laws is to ensure precisely the state/the authorities remain confined to the jurisdiction of power against unarmed human beings in detention.
Source: The Wikipedia.org (The Free encyclopedia) – Thanks
The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (abbreviated GCIII or GPW) , one of the Geneva Conventions, is a treaty agreement that primarily concerns the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), and also touched on other topics. It replaced the Geneva Convention (1929).
According to Article 3, Part 1, General Provisions referred to as ‘Convention in miniature,’
“Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees, which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3’s protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.”
Habeas corpus (IPA: /ˌheɪbiːæsˈkɔːpəs/) (Latin: You (shall) have the body[1]) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Simply put,
Habeas corpus, a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.”
Here are some news articles detailing the torture on presumed ‘suspects’ held in captivity by the U.S authorities.
Warning: The following articles are graphic and may not be suitable for all.
“I Could Not Stop Screaming”
“The British newspaper Guardian (2/18/2005) reported that one Bagram prisoner, a Palestinian named Mustafa, was blindfolded, handcuffed, gagged, and forced to bend down over a table by three American soldiers. He said, “They forcibly rammed a stick up my rectum… I could not stop screaming when this happened.”
In another case reported by the Guardian, a Jordanian prisoner, Wesam Abdulrahman Ahmed Al Deemawi, said that during a 40-day period at Bagram he was threatened with dogs, stripped and photographed “in shameful and obscene positions” and placed in a cage with a hook and a hanging rope. He says he was hung from this hook, blindfolded, for two days.
Both men were freed from U.S. detention last year after being held at Bagram and Guantánamo. Neither has been charged with anything by any government.
Dilawar, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and farmer, was killed by U.S. torturers at Bagram in December 2002. He had been beaten and chained by his wrists for four days. After his last torture session, Dilawar was chained back to the ceiling. Several hours passed before a doctor saw him—by which time he was dead and already beginning to stiffen.
“An official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission questioned –
“Are They Going to Vanish Forever?”
“The Americans are detaining people without any legal procedure. Prisoners do not have the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.”
Despite the unprecedented human rights violations… translated barbaric in modern times, the defense for the authorities authorizing and executing the medieval customs against unarmed detainees charged guilty without due process is astonishing. The world witnessed the pervasive prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Bagram, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay through explosive visuals, editorials, columns and interviews predominantly from the international sources and on-line mass media.
Incidentally, the torturers’ loyalists cry ‘foul’ against the latest revelation. Even though, the international news organizations and human rights groups have been reporting these incidents all along per above articles. Contrasting the detainees position, all those responsible for the unconscionable crime against humanity involving innocent victims in the witch-hunt for terror suspects, are also exempt from due process however, with the distinction of them proclaimed “Patriotic” in their utter disregard for International laws and human rights.
Clearly, the abuse of power in this context from the pyramid‘s apex to the base is symbolic in the embarrassing chapter of American history. Ironically, the explanation for torture attributed to national defense while ignoring the brutality against other nationals and their families’ ordeal.
One might argue if it’s worth treading the retribution path rather than moving forward. It’s possible to move forward if the past had no remnants of violation of the laws involving global citizens in prolonged detention specifically in the absence of any evidence or trials. Similar treatment of American nationals would have created pandemonium at all levels.
Besides, such practices open the floodgates for misuse of power by future administrations notwithstanding other nations…currently witnessed in the treatment of American journalists imprisoned on allegedly espionage charges by Iran and North Korea.
Whenever there is excessive abuse of power, unequivocally democracy threatened aside from the Constitution made irrelevant. Therefore, it’s incumbent on the people in a democracy to ensure that neither the state nor any authority is above the law in the land of justice.
Please stand by for more information and analysis on related topics.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Humanitarian Call
March 3, 2009
In the tough economy, charities and humanitarian groups are worst hit and struggling to raise funds for various causes. Their relentless effort to reach out to millions at home and around the world is admirable despite sharp decline in donations from ordinary people willing to participate but unable to do so in these difficult times.
Each one of us could make a difference with whatever affordable to the less fortunate and those deserving inspiration to meet with challenges in life.
I request all generous citizens to spare time and share limited resources at our disposal to help charities engaged to promote spirit of living against all odds.
There are many charity organizations praiseworthy and I list some of them to raise awareness of their service to humanity.
Your generosity will serve many aspiring athletes, children deprived of any future and adults incapacitated due to debilitating illnesses.
Let us not forget our fellow citizens at home and around the world.
Your time and donations deeply appreciated now and in the future.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
——————————————————————————-
Special Olympics – 2009 Annual Fund –
If you decide to make any donations, please mail payments to;
Special Olympics Northern California
3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 340
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
www.sonc.org
Accredited by Special Olympics, Inc. www.specialolympics.org
Important: Your gift may be doubled if your employer has a matching gift program. Please see your Human Resources Department today.
——————————————————–
2. International Rescue Committee – Mr. Tom Brokaw (Reputable and well respected journalist and NBC Host)
among the Board of Overseers.
Why is it important? In Mr. Brokaw’s words —
"If I seem to be writing about the IRC in very personal terms, there is a reason. You see, the Brokaw family has a long history with this remarkable organization. It dates from my daughter’s work in Europe helping refugees from Soviet oppression to her six months in Pakistan, providing health care to Afghani women during the Soviet occupation.
Jennifer saw this legendary organization from the inside and impressed on the rest of our family the importance of the IRC’s work. So when I was given the opportunity to take on a new role with the IRC, I quickly agreed. Jennifer’s engagement with the IRC has continued as well. A highly-skilled physician, she was a member of the IRC emergency response team dispatched to Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Because it operates in 42 countries around the world, the reach and scope of the IRC’s work is quite dramatic. But, at the end of the day, it all comes down to individual people getting the help they need when it matters most.
Helping the IRC is about reaching out to a child in a crowded refugee camp who, along with her mother, fled Darfur when armed men burned and attacked their village."
For further information: Please visit www.theIRC.org – International Rescue Committee.
Your contribution is tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Mailing address: International Rescue Committee, P.O.Box 98152, Washington DC 20077-7355.
——————————————————————-
3. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, P.O.Box 50, Memphis, TN 38101-9929
www.stjude.org
Many children are living after traumatic and agonizing illnesses like cancer through chemotherapy, radiation and bone marrow transplants at this center.
—————————————————————-
4. Easter Seals, San Jose/San Mateo Region, P.O.Box 611840, San Jose, CA 95161-1840
Easter Seals is involved in helping all people with severe disabilities to gain independence.
Again, if you wish to make payments, please make check payable to Easter Seals.
—————————————————————————–
5. Feed The Children, P.O.Box 36, Oklahoma City OK 73101-9989
www.HelpFeedNow.com, Tel.# (405) 942-0228
Engaged in helping American families receiving pink slips instead of paychecks at this time.
————————————————————————–
OP-Ed Impact of Military Arsenal on Children
March 1, 2009
How does war impact young minds?
Can the military industrial complex justify their profits at the expense of these innocent lives?
A teenager’s viewpoint regarding an article by New York Times and concerns about the real victims of war – Children, the future of the world.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/world/asia/18afghan.html
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/02/17/world/20090217AFGHAN_9.html
———————————————————————————
By: Kanish Arhant-Sudhir
The article that goes along with this picture talks about how the death toll in Afghanistan has risen by over forty percent in 2008. One specific example reported on a man named Syed Mohammed, who’s entire family was slaughtered by American and Afghan soldiers. He went next door to his son’s house, only to find that the only survivor in his entire son’s family was his four year-old grandson, Zarqawi. In another case, an American AC-130 gunship, which is a plane armed with several deadly explosive rounds as well as a gatling cannon, attacked a suspected Taliban building, killing more than 90 people.
Marai, age 7, was blinded
in one eye from shrapnel during fighting between the Taliban and NATO troops.
Mohammed Amin Kadimi, age 47, was pushing a wheelbarrow through a city street, looking for work.
A young man approached him carrying a paper bag weighing about ten pounds. He asked him to carry the bag to Pul-e-Khesti, a nearby neighborhood. After some time walking, Mr. Kadimi noticed that the young man was no longer behind him. The bag then exploded, blasting Mr. Kadimi away, mangling his right leg and severing his left one. He now sits on a city street, selling phone cards. He wonders why he was chosen as a target.
————————————————————————-
Youssif, age 5, before explosion (left), and after explosion (right)
Youssif’s skin was so deformed that hypodermic balloons had to be inserted in his skin to stretch it, allowing operations to be possible. He underwent 37 surgeries in one month.
When I assess these so-called carnage reports, I am absolutely disgusted. It is appalling that human kind would resort to such violence against one another, and for no valid cause at all. Exemplified in the cases of Marai and Youssif, the boy who’s face was grotesquely deformed by shrapnel from a fragmentation grenade; even children on the cusp of life are subject to such tortures as these. The brutality towards these innocent civilians is inexplicably revolting and inexcusable. No ‘political’ motive should be so great as to put the lives of innocent people at risk.
It’s time for mankind to reassess the pros and cons of war and peace for the sake of children around the world.
There is no compensation for loss of life especially children who are wiped out of this earth before they get to know it.
Thank you.
Kanish Arhant-Sudhir